On December 14, 2023, a verdict from the Supreme Court, as delivered by Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, addresses the intricacies of a master-servant relationship during a suspension period. The court ruled that the workman remains obligated to adhere to all rules governing the post despite the suspension, debunking the notion of voluntary retirement during such periods.
In the case at hand, a workman in a respondent bank faced suspension in 1982 due to disorderly behavior. The subsequent inquiry found him guilty, leading to the punishment of stoppage of two graded increments with cumulative effect. Despite this, the court emphasized that the master-servant relationship persists during suspension, and the workman must comply with post regulations.
The petitioner, who joined as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in 1977, was advised to report for duty at another branch but failed to do so. Consequently, he was deemed to have voluntarily retired as per the Bipartite Agreement. The court rejected the petitioner’s arguments against this, citing a lack of compliance with transfer orders and failure to join duty.
The court further highlighted the petitioner’s delay in disputing the deemed retirement, pointing out that his actions, such as enrolling as an advocate and handling cases for the Bank’s employees, indicated acceptance of the punishment order. The judgment asserted that failure to avail of remedies implies acceptance of the order, and later challenges cannot negate the initial compliance obligation.
In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the master-servant relationship during suspension, emphasizing the workman’s obligation to follow all post rules. The appeal, titled “U.P. Singh v. Punjab National Bank CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5494 OF 2013,” was ultimately dismissed, affirming the decisions of the lower courts.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
